46% of Republicans, 27% of Democrats, won't accept results if they lose the Presidential Election

[cpwill]

While acknowledging that we may be getting a false positive (ie: people feel the need to communicate confidence to a pollster, such that they have to insist that any loss would be the result of malfeasance)....

....this is a stupid time.

The nonpartisan World Justice Project, which keeps an index of how strong the rule of law is in more than 100 countries, gathered the data as part of a larger study. The poll was conducted through online interviews with 1,046 American households between June 10 and June 18.​

​

The report did not ask people what specific “action” they would take to overturn the election results, just that that 46% of Republicans and 27% of Democrats wouldn't accept results, and 14% of Republicans compared to 11% of Democrats said they would "take action."...​

​

Only 29% of Republicans said that the electoral process is free from corruption, compared to 56% of Democrats. One of the biggest gaps was in response to the statement, “Votes are counted accurately.” Only 43% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats agreed. Democrats were less likely than Republicans to believe that “people are able to vote conveniently” and that “voting access is equal for all citizens."​

Again. There is about as much voter fraud in this country as there is voter suppression. Which is to say: virtually none, and certainly nothing within orders of magnitude of the kind necessary to change the results of a Presidential Election.

In June, the University of Chicago’s poll found that 7% of American adults, including almost 12% of Republicans, support the use of force to return Trump to the presidency. On the other hand, 10% of Americans, and about 12% of Democrats, support the use of force to prevent Trump from becoming president again.​

We desperately need to reduce the power of the Presidency. It should not matter This Much who the President is.

 

[j brown's body]

While acknowledging that we may be getting a false positive (ie: people feel the need to communicate confidence to a pollster, such that they have to insist that any loss would be the result of malfeasance)....

....this is a stupid time.

The nonpartisan World Justice Project, which keeps an index of how strong the rule of law is in more than 100 countries, gathered the data as part of a larger study. The poll was conducted through online interviews with 1,046 American households between June 10 and June 18.​

​

The report did not ask people what specific “action” they would take to overturn the election results, just that that 46% of Republicans and 27% of Democrats wouldn't accept results, and 14% of Republicans compared to 11% of Democrats said they would "take action."...​

​

Only 29% of Republicans said that the electoral process is free from corruption, compared to 56% of Democrats. One of the biggest gaps was in response to the statement, “Votes are counted accurately.” Only 43% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats agreed. Democrats were less likely than Republicans to believe that “people are able to vote conveniently” and that “voting access is equal for all citizens."​

Again. There is about as much voter fraud in this country as there is voter suppression. Which is to say: virtually none, and certainly nothing within orders of magnitude of the kind necessary to change the results of a Presidential Election.

In June, the University of Chicago’s poll found that 7% of American adults, including almost 12% of Republicans, support the use of force to return Trump to the presidency. On the other hand, 10% of Americans, and about 12% of Democrats, support the use of force to prevent Trump from becoming president again.​

We desperately need to reduce the power of the Presidency. It should not matter This Much who the President is.

Goid luck with that. The Supreme Court just gave the president criminal immunity.

Plus, this is what the GOP supports:

"In American law, unitary executive theory is "an expansive interpretation of presidential power that aims to centralize greater control over the government in the White House".[1] The concept often comes up in jurisprudential disagreements about the president's ability to remove employees within the executive branch; transparency and access to information; discretion over the implementation of new laws; and the ability to influence agencies' rule-making.[2] There is disagreement about the doctrine's strength and scope, with more expansive versions of the theory becoming the focus of modern political debate. These expansive versions are controversial for both constitutional and practical reasons.[3][4][5] Since the Reagan administration, the Supreme Court has embraced a stronger unitary executive, which has been championed primarily by its conservative justices, the Federalist Society, and the Heritage Foundation.[6][7][8][9]"

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Again. There is about as much voter fraud in this country as there is voter suppression. Which is to say: virtually none, and certainly nothing within orders of magnitude of the kind necessary to change the results of a Presidential Election.

Lost me there. To say there hasn't been a significant effort to place barriers to voting since Shelby County v Holder in the south alone is disingenuous, at best. And this leaves out partisan gerrymandering.

Republicans are on record as saying they win if they can suppress voting from those who support their opponents.

 

[cpwill]

Lost me there. To say there hasn't been a significant effort to place barriers to voting since Shelby County v Holder in the south alone is disingenuous, at best. And this leaves out partisan gerrymandering.

Republicans are on record as saying they win if they can suppress voting from those who support their opponents.

Partisan Gerrymandering (which both sides are fine with so long as they are the ones doing it) is not voter suppression, nor is it voter fraud. It is obviously unfair, however, neither side seems interested in disarming.


However, the cases claiming widespread voter suppression (for example, when Stacy Abrams claimed that the Georgia Gubernatorial election had been stolen from her) have failed for the same reason that the cases claiming widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election did: utter lack of evidence.


That hasn't stopped the Democratic party from launching a bunch of crap rhetoric about voter suppression. We got a bunch of foolishness about "Jim Eagle" down in Georgia about a law that turned out.... to actually increase access to voting, voter participation, and voter participation by African Americans...


Both our major political parties have discovered that a great base-turnout tool is to tell them that The Other Tribe Is Gonna Try To Steal It (and it doubles as a psychological salve for people who live in a bubble, and who can't understand why they might lose), so Republicans cry Fraud and Democrats cry Repression, and both of them are full of it.


However, the point of this thread is that - partly as a result of this rhetoric by the Parties - Americans are increasingly unwilling to accept the legitimacy of any election in which they don't get what they want.

 

[Cardinal]

Partisan Gerrymandering (which both sides are fine with so long as they are the ones doing it)

Wow. No. Both sides are not okay with gerrymandering. Democrats created a voting rights bill that would have banned gerrymandering, and of course Republicans rejected it. Not practicing gerrymandering would as you perfectly well know when you made this post be unilateral disarmament. But if gerrymandering could be eliminated across the board Democrats would be on board at the speed of light.

And yes, gerrymandering is absolutely voter suppression.

is not voter suppression, nor is it voter fraud. It is obviously unfair, however, neither side seems interested in disarming.


However, the cases claiming widespread voter suppression (for example, when Stacy Abrams claimed that the Georgia Gubernatorial election had been stolen from her) have failed for the same reason that the cases claiming widespread voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election did: utter lack of evidence.


That hasn't stopped the Democratic party from launching a bunch of crap rhetoric about voter suppression. We got a bunch of foolishness about "Jim Eagle" down in Georgia about a law that turned out.... to actually increase access to voting, voter participation, and voter participation by African Americans...


Both our major political parties have discovered that a great base-turnout tool is to tell them that The Other Tribe Is Gonna Try To Steal It (and it doubles as a psychological salve for people who live in a bubble, and who can't understand why they might lose), so Republicans cry Fraud and Democrats cry Repression, and both of them are full of it.


However, the point of this thread is that - partly as a result of this rhetoric by the Parties - Americans are increasingly unwilling to accept the legitimacy of any election in which they don't get what they want.

 

[Chomsky]

The linked poll concerning violence seems to statistically indicate the MAGA heightened propensity to violence some of us believe we perceive:

1 in 4 Republicans supports political violence if election is 'compromised,' study says

One in six Americans supports political violence. The proportion is much higher among Republicans than Democrats.

www.usatoday.com

 

[reflechissez]

Again. There is about as much voter fraud in this country as there is voter suppression. Which is to say: virtually none,

How are you measuring that?

 

[cpwill]

How are you measuring that?

Documented occurrence as demonstrated in a court of law, rather than claimed by a politician trying to whip up a crowd.

 

[reflechissez]

Documented occurrence as demonstrated in a court of law, rather than claimed by a politician trying to whip up a crowd.

With evidence like this, who could disagree?

 

[cpwill]

With evidence like this, who could disagree?

That is the evidence that matters. Trump and his minions, for example, made a LOT of claims of voter fraud....

..... and then when they had to show them in court, they melted away, and it turned out they couldn't, actually, provide real-world examples where that actually happened.


Meanwhile, Stacey Abrams and others, for example, made a LOT of claims of voter suppression...

.... and then, when they had to show them in court, those also melted away, and it turned out they couldn't, actually, provide real-world examples where that actually happened.


It is worth noting in this instance that it is the same public officials in Georgia who told Trump there had been no voter Fraud, and he lost, who also told Democrats there had been no voter suppression, and they were wrong.

But, neither Trump nor Biden, nor Abrams cared. Because whether the accusations are true is irrelevant to their purpose in hurling them.

 

[nvflash]

While acknowledging that we may be getting a false positive (ie: people feel the need to communicate confidence to a pollster, such that they have to insist that any loss would be the result of malfeasance)....

....this is a stupid time.

The nonpartisan World Justice Project, which keeps an index of how strong the rule of law is in more than 100 countries, gathered the data as part of a larger study. The poll was conducted through online interviews with 1,046 American households between June 10 and June 18.​

​

The report did not ask people what specific “action” they would take to overturn the election results, just that that 46% of Republicans and 27% of Democrats wouldn't accept results, and 14% of Republicans compared to 11% of Democrats said they would "take action."...​

​

Only 29% of Republicans said that the electoral process is free from corruption, compared to 56% of Democrats. One of the biggest gaps was in response to the statement, “Votes are counted accurately.” Only 43% of Republicans and 84% of Democrats agreed. Democrats were less likely than Republicans to believe that “people are able to vote conveniently” and that “voting access is equal for all citizens."​

Again. There is about as much voter fraud in this country as there is voter suppression. Which is to say: virtually none, and certainly nothing within orders of magnitude of the kind necessary to change the results of a Presidential Election.

In June, the University of Chicago’s poll found that 7% of American adults, including almost 12% of Republicans, support the use of force to return Trump to the presidency. On the other hand, 10% of Americans, and about 12% of Democrats, support the use of force to prevent Trump from becoming president again.​

We desperately need to reduce the power of the Presidency. It should not matter This Much who the President is.

It's always mattered this much.

People want comfort and convenience, they are not giving that up no matter how corrupt elections maybe.

Sure, you got those fringe retards who may start something, but they were malcontents to begin with and if it wasn't this excuse to set them off it would be some other.

Now you get enough of those malcontents together and you have a leader who won't back down, you end up with a situation like Jan. 6th, but that was not a mass uprising. It was just a bunch or retards fueled by rightwing conspiracy theory propaganda and Trumps' hyperbole.

The left has it's own nut jobs and conspiracy theory propaganda, but in our time no Democrat in the Whitehouse has ever refused to leave office and called for a mob.

 

[Grogu]

That is the evidence that matters. Trump and his minions, for example, made a LOT of claims of voter fraud....

..... and then when they had to show them in court, they melted away, and it turned out they couldn't, actually, provide real-world examples where that actually happened.


Meanwhile, Stacey Abrams and others, for example, made a LOT of claims of voter suppression...

.... and then, when they had to show them in court, those also melted away, and it turned out they couldn't, actually, provide real-world examples where that actually happened.


It is worth noting in this instance that it is the same public officials in Georgia who told Trump there had been no voter Fraud, and he lost, who also told Democrats there had been no voter suppression, and they were wrong.

But, neither Trump nor Biden, nor Abrams cared. Because whether the accusations are true is irrelevant to their purpose in hurling them.

You claimed that, “There is about as much voter fraud in this country as there is voter suppression.” So if it’s not an issue in your mind, and you instead point to a lack of court cases against voter suppression laws, then why is there a need for states to pass additional voter suppression laws in the first place?

Why not take a look at all of the voter suppression bills proposed or passed in state legislatures?

So far, the new voting laws enacted in 2024 are following the trends set in 2021. Some states have put new voting restrictions in place while others have enacted new laws that make voting easier.

Between January 1 and May 3, 2024:

• At least six states enacted seven restrictive laws. Most notably, Alabama and Idaho each passed significant new restrictions. Five of the seven new laws in five states (Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, and Tennessee) will be in place for the 2024 general election.
• At least one state, South Dakota, passed an election interference law, which goes into effect on July 1.
• At least 11 states enacted 14 expansive laws, the most notable being one in Kentucky that widely expands absentee voting access. Twelve of these laws, including Kentucky’s, will be in effect for this year’s general election.

The most restrictive of the new laws prohibit certain forms of assistance with absentee voting. This is consistent with the trend of some state legislatures making it a priority to curtail access to voting by mail, which we’ve tracked since the expansion and record use of mail voting at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.

Voting Laws Roundup: May 2024

Voters in almost half the country will face new voting restrictions in the upcoming general election.

www.brennancenter.org

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

We desperately need to reduce the power of the Presidency. It should not matter This Much who the President is.

Glad you are acknowledging the danger of MAGA efforts to catapult the presidency to the level of a king or "soft" dictatorship in which POTUS basically rules by decree with the instant automatic approval of a rubber stamp legislature and the support of a government staffed exclusively by Trump loyalists.
It means you're an actual real conservative, and I respect that.